Comments by CA-Oxonian

The reviewer seems to be saying, "well, yes, America is doing lots of things wrong and choking its own growth prospects and there's no sign whatsoever of any improvement, but other countries are worse." Oh, great, so we can relax now! Why should my children have to learn math (which is, as they say, "hard") when all they need to do is start another Facebook? Why should we worry about government incompetence when the private sector can be "nimble?" Sounds like a great time to break out the six-pack and celebrate. Just one question: how many beers in a six-pack? A gazillion?

Well, we'll see how this plays out. Every few years the US Military tries to iron out some of the millions of wrinkles in its hopelessly inept, bureaucratic and inefficient procurement process and every time the results are: no change. It would be nice to imagine that the behemoth can learn to dance a little more nimbly but the track record to date is far from encouraging. And let's be clear: both the Internet and GPS sat/nav only really took off after commercial organizations began utilizing the underlying technologies for civilian uses.

Although an economic analysis is interesting, the real analysis is psychological. The Greeks seem not to have grasped that they can not expect to live off German money indefinitely. The leftist political parties are peddling a fantasy of keeping the Euro but dumping so-called "austerity" measures (e.g. restructuring the economy to make it more competitive, less restrictive). If a "rescue" is arranged it will only encourage the Greeks - and most likely then the Italians too - to continue in their path. Better that reality strikes now than that Europe remains in a dream for a couple more years during which even more economic damage is likely. In the end, it's down to people's beliefs and expectations. Those are resistant to rational arguments and logical analyses.

Creating collateralized debt is just another way of trying to prolong the game in which Germany and a handful of smaller countries pay for the lifestyles of countries unwilling to restructure their economies. Although it might buy a year or two of stability, the underlying problems will remain and eat through any such "solution" like acid through metal. Europe could boost growth: get rid of laws that favor some workers over everyone else. Most European countries still operate as though they were regulating medieval craft guilds. Undoing these bad laws could raise growth by a couple of percentage points almost immediately - but, alas, politicians don't want to offend those special-interest groups so that's off the table. Basically all difficult structural reforms are off the table because they would be "politically inexpedient" so the only thing left to try is... (big fanfare, look of surprise): get Germany to keep paying for other people's expenditures.

Not really a very good game for anyone, is it? So, no matter how you dress it up, it's rather surprising that The Economist should propose it. After all, the eventual outcome will be the same: the collapse of Europe's economies. Why make everyone even weaker by prolonging the game? Why not just accept the fact that things are totally out of control and brace as best as possible for the impact? Better in 2012 than in 2014 when everyone will be in even worse shape because the Greeks will, as always, avoid restructuring and the Germans will be even more out-of-pocket than they are today.

One of the advantages of living in the USA for more than two decades is that there's enough time to come to terms with the reality of the place. The USA has lots of positive features, most particularly its can-do attitude (so different from Europe with its "why you can't do it" attitude). But the big deficit the USA has is the gap between the dream and reality. Most Americans don't peek under the cover to notice that their country is as politically corrupt and inept as Italy and (prison-wise) as repressive as Russia. So long as McDonalds is nearby and the TV is spewing out its endless noise and color, life is good. So long as you have money, everything is possible. By and large, citizens have the habit of automatic amnesia, forgetting anything that might be unpleasant, difficult, or at odds with a Disneyesque view of life. Hence those who find themselves on the bottom rungs of society are simply cast into oblivion because this is the easiest option for a nation whose approach to life is fast-everything: fast food, fast thinking. And we know how healthy a choice that turns out to be....

Perhaps there are more variables in the equation than those covered in the studies cited in this article. For example, from an evolutionary perspective it would be beneficial for men to have feelings/behaviors that lead them to invest in their offspring in the early years, thus maximizing the probability of the child(ren)'s survival and hence ensuring further passing-on of the father's DNA. But after the child(ren) have reached the age of four or five (which historically has been the break-point after which continued survival is much more probable) it would make sense for the man to look for additional procreation options elsewhere. So we can imagine a more careful study in which satisfaction is correlated to the age of the father's child(ren) to test this particular variable and associated hypothesis.

Although I'm certainly no fan of Wall Street types, it does seem a little odd that the "average guy" in the USA now expects investment banking to be a risk-free business in which trades only result in profits, always, and never, ever in losses. Presumably the clamor for more regulation will ultimately result in laws that prohibit losses altogether? Isn't this the same kind of fantasy-land as that inhabited by Europeans who think they can have an ever-more-lavish standard of living without actually having to earn it? Also, just to nit-pick a little, even at $3 billion, the loss would be about 1% of JPM's portfolio, which is barely a blip. The Dow Jones, for example, gyrates far more than this over the course of a week or two.

If only the rules of fantasy-land could be imported into the real world... The problem of willful denial could be solved by just a few hard-headed folk willing to face up to things as they really are, because (to borrow a phrase from Peter Pan) "every time someone says they don't believe in political fairy-stories, a fairy-story teller dies."

At root it seems that Europeans for too long grew plump and indolent on the back of German funds. Now they are facing the necessity of pulling their own weight and it's a terrifying prospect. So, of course, retreating into "we want more of what we had before" is the easiest option. Only problem is, the Germans are understandably sick of working hard to pay for everyone else's leisure. The game is up, but denial is a seductive mistress. Reality is going to be a very long and painful experience.

The French voted for fantasy over reality so an unpleasant hard awakening will come sooner rather than later. Hollande is hollow and the only question is how much damage will be inflicted on France before the window-dressing falls away.

In some ways, the Greek desire for continuing in the Eurozone while opting out of austerity and (more importantly) structural reforms is akin to North American desire to eat ever-larger portions of food while at the same time slimming down and becoming healthy. Trouble is, they are mutually incompatible goals. Whereas in the latter case charlatans of all kinds can make a fortune exploiting the wilfull foolishness of consumers, in the former case it seems that everyone will lose a great many fortunes all round.

Kony and his ilk are both symptom and cause. Symptom of a frayed social fabric, virtually no civic infrastructure, and gross poverty. Cause, because his activities exacerbate the very conditions that gave rise to him in the first place. In order to have development it's necessary to have a modicum of stability. So eliminating Kony and his like is a prerequisite for economic and civic development.

It's always a fascinating, if not particularly edifying, sight to witness full-scale denial in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Greeks seem to resemble the famous Iraqi spokesman who stood denying the US presence in Bagdad while US armored vehicles moved past behind him. The problem with denial is that reality always, in the end, wins and denial merely compounds the price to be paid. The Greeks seem to be living in some bizarre fantasy world in which basic economics has been repealed and magic happy-ever-after (so long as the Germans keep paying the bills) is possible. Reality is going to be very, very painful for all concerned. At least the rest of the Eurozone members seem slowly to be awakening from the dream, albeit rather late in the day, and preparing for reality to bite.

The Chinese super-rich must be very insecure, weak-minded people if they need such overt ego-pampering. Anyone who needs such elaborate external affirmations of personal value clearly can't have much in the way of inner self-worth. Although it's grotesque to see such pointless indulgence relative to the poverty that most Chinese people still endure, it's mostly just pathetic.

The underlying cause of the strife is simply the fact that people who lack internal stability grab onto religion (of whatever kind - it's just a matter of where you happen to be in the world) as a kind of psychological stabilizer-bar, akin to a tightrope walker seeking balance on the high wire. So of course the more psychologically unstable you are, the bigger the bar you need to cling on to - e.g., the more extremist you will be. At root, what is comes down to is that extremism arises out of mental instability and religious doctrine merely provides window-dressing and a convenient set of "beliefs" by means of which to demonize one's supposed enemies. And again, this is just basic psychology - we all know that the worse we feel about ourselves, the more we strive to project these bad feelings onto others so as to disown our "inner badness." The notion that a bunch of academics can in any way alter the situation on the ground by means of doctrinal compromises is as realistic as thinking that an aged literary critic could defuse an IED. Fact is, it's always the psychologically weak and thwarted who become the most unpleasant of the species and the garb in which they clothe themselves is utterly irrelevant.

It would have been interesting if the article had made brief mention of the properties expected of the super-heavy atoms that are predicted to be feasible within the lower "island of stability." This would give some sense of how such novel elements might be useful.

To someone who recently (and very belatedly) discovered the BBC TV series Top Gear and who has, thanks to Netflix, been following the "cheeky chappie" antics of the presenters who weekly struggle to come up with ever-more outlandish ways to maintain their viewership numbers, the solution to the problem of noise pollution appears obvious. Each seat in the train can be equipped with a cheap sensor that can be set to emit a tiny pulse once a given decibel threshold has been exceeded. This pulse can then trigger the release of a modest electric shock through the metal arms of the seat so as to admonish the transgressor. Such dissuasion could commence at, say, 50,000 volts and increase in steps if the passenger persists in making noise. Such steps should be rapid (for example, one shock can follow the previous in about one second) so as to minimize the duration of any accidental feed-forward loops that might be inadvertently created by the system (e.g. the first jolt causes the passenger to scream, which of course triggers a second and more powerful jolt, which has the same effect, thus triggering a third... if we can assume a linear step-up, silence should be restored after the third or fourth "reminder to be silent" and peace should consequently be restored in under 5 seconds). If the train seats can be made of impermeable plastic, it should facilitate more rapid removal of the remains of errant passengers once they've reached their final destination.

Facebook is not a company, it's a huge sociology experiment. Once again hype and herd mentality triumphs over reason and experience. Regardless of what happens to Facebook in the coming years, it's proven conclusively that people simply can't learn much from experience. Nor can we think ahead with any degree of perspicacity. Who wants to be the recipient of "targeted advertising" these days? It is a 19th century model of communication. We don't need it. It's like bolting a mechanical hand onto a buggy whip: vaguely amusing but irrelevant. For real insight into where the future lies, check out today's start-ups that have figured out how to create direct connections between what people want and what is available (for example, Ubokia which, while clunky right now is at least heading in the right direction). And as we all drown in a sea of apps (who else has heard the phrase "there must be an app for it" more than 100 times this year so far?) check out obscure but potentially important start-ups like Botnik. Fact is, anyone with an Internet connection and the ability to type in a few relevant search terms can quickly identify companies that are far more likely to dominate the Internet in 2020 than Facebook, which - like Google - rely on a model of communication that is unbelievably anachronistic.

If you can't stop supply, inhibit demand. Insert capability into the supply chain and add "a little something" to the horn that ensures anyone consuming it will become very, very ill. A few months of this will have an amazing educational effect on those who currently believe in rhino horn's magical properties. When reason doesn't work, more basic dissuasion can be highly efficacious.

While it may be a national characteristic to believe that America is in decline, that doesn't mean the analysis is wrong today. With crumbling infrastructure, political dysfunction of the lowest order, an educational system that's deeply flawed, a dearth of new jobs (despite fat corporate profits), government debt (on and off-balance sheet) that is impossible to sustain over the medium term, an electorate for whom the epithet "ignorant" would be high praise, immigration policies that keep the global best and brightest and hardest-working out of the country... how is all of this somehow cause for optimism?